Quote from: franky1 on February 06, 2017, 11:36:52 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on February 06, 2017, 11:32:02 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 06, 2017, 11:12:56 AM

Scaling 100% off-chain runs in stark contrast to the underlying principles of an open and permissionless system. Users won't stand for it and won't allow it to happen.

Hmmm, the only off-chain system currently proposed is permissionless. So, WTF are you talking about? Oh yes, that's right, you're talking about incredibly subtle anti-Bitcoin propaganda, like you always do. Roll Eyes

Do you think that if you repeat "Lightning is Banking 2.0" a million times, it will magically become the truth?

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
if you need someone else to sign a transaction.. say hello to 'permission'

Plus we shouldn't forget about the "open" part. It's hardly an open system if people are forced to transact off-chain because on-chain is constantly full and prohibitively expensive. I'm confident that node operators will make their own judgement calls based on the level of service they're getting from the system as a whole. Users won't support a system that doesn't support them. If the user experience deteriorates to an unacceptable level, users will take action to remedy it. Simple cause and effect. The only thing yet to be determined is if we do SegWit then blocksize, or as a compromise do both at once just to end the current impasse. It seems clear that both (and more) have to happen.

Quote from: Lauda on February 06, 2017, 12:11:47 PM

Quote from: franky1 on February 06, 2017, 11:36:52 AM

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
-snip-

Will you stop with the nonsense already?

Whether you deem it "nonsense" or not, it's still a dramatic shift in how the system operates. I, for one, am glad that people are stopping to think about the ramifications. It seems like almost everyone has a slightly different idea in their head about exactly how Lightning is going to operate in practice. Right now it's all theory, so I'm not going to dismiss franky1's concerns. I certainly hope they prove to be unfounded, but if there's any chance they're not...

Quote from: Lauda on February 06, 2017, 12:11:47 PM

Quote from: isoneguy on February 06, 2017, 11:58:02 AM

what about a variable blocksize?

There isn't a good proposal yet that:
1) Doesn't give the miners too much power.
2) Or which is very hard to game.

AFAIK it is stated somewhere that the general consensus long term is a variable block size, but that requires a lot more research and testing.

Precisely. Thinking ahead and considering the potential shortcomings about that proposal. It's not "nonsense" to do that. It's sensible. So why are we shooting down people talking about Lightning in exactly the same way?